Concentration of Power in the US - Page 3

DblBarrelJ · #21 10-22-2007, 05:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
more expensive, less efficient method of doing something

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly and wrong. There's a reason the government plan is going to indirectly destroy broadly held private insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialistic greed?

Edit: Anytime the government begins to destroy anything privately held I get scared, and if you're smart, you would too.

DcifrThs · #22 10-22-2007, 05:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and if Hillary served two terms it would be 28 years with a Clinton or Bush in charge, not 36. Dummy.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was including the 8 years Bush Sr served as VP under Reagan.

[/ QUOTE ]

well in that case it wouldn't be 36 straight years as you'd now have to count the 8 years that dick cheney ran the country.

Barron

One Outer · #23 10-22-2007, 05:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
more expensive, less efficient method of doing something

[/ QUOTE ]

Silly and wrong. There's a reason the government plan is going to indirectly destroy broadly held private insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialistic greed?

Edit: Anytime the government begins to destroy anything privately held I get scared, and if you're smart, you would too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this assumption that private is universally good or better come from? Also, the government isn't actively going to destroy private insurance; it's going to be an natural evolutionary leap. The government plan is going to be so much better that private insurance won't be able to compete. It's indirect.

I don't see the problem here. This is not an issue of freedom or rights. If anything it is an issue of freedom from economic insecurity.

iggymcfly · #24 10-22-2007, 05:25 AM

Yes, an evolutionary leap where they force you to pay for their plan or else go to jail, but then still allow you to pay for another one if you want. That's "a natural evolutionary leap" the same way paying the mafia for protection was a "natural leap" for business in the 1920s.

DblBarrelJ · #25 10-22-2007, 05:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Where does this assumption that private is universally good or better come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Economics 101.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the government isn't actively going to destroy private insurance; it's going to be an natural evolutionary leap. The government plan is going to be so much better that private insurance won't be able to compete. It's indirect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please name ANYHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that the government currently does so well that the private sector couldn't compete? Then, we'll discuss whether they can repeat that performance with health care.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the problem here. This is not an issue of freedom or rights. If anything it is an issue of freedom from economic insecurity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obscene tax hikes aren't a threat to my economic security? I have health insurance, I don't need more.

Taso · #26 10-22-2007, 05:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The Clinton plan doesnt' force government insurance on anyone"

Yes, it does. If you dont want coverage at all you are still forced to enroll in something or you cant work.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right and I'll clarify.

The Clinton plan does not force anyone who currently has private insurance to leave their plan and participate in the government program. Anyone that is happy with their current private insurance is completely free to keep it.

Of course, that largely isn't going to happen, so who cares. The government insurance is going to drive the private sector out of business for almost everybody inside of 15 years anyway.

And so what if you have to enroll in something to work? I'm not seeing the problem there. Health care is good. That's like saying "if I want to breath, I'm forced to breath just oxygen". It's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you mean you can opt out of government insurance and not pay the associated taxes, or do I have to pay for government insurance whether or not I'm benefiting from it?

Also, a key difference between having insurance and breathing oxygen is that breathing oxygen isn't negative expected value (bracketing the other ways in which that analogy is absurd).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, say whatever you want about the analogy. On the spot.

I don't know if you can opt out of paying into the government program. If you can't, get over it. Social contract. Government is how we come together to do things that we can't as individuals. If we decide that means health care (as we will see in the next election) then so be it. Deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get over it? Get over the federal government taking more of my money and giving it to other people? Here's an idea: People use their own health insurance plans, pay for it themselves or get it from their job, and I'll do the same.

DcifrThs · #27 10-22-2007, 05:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the government isn't actively going to destroy private insurance; it's going to be an natural evolutionary leap. The government plan is going to be so much better that private insurance won't be able to compete. It's indirect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please name ANYHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that the government currently does so well that the private sector couldn't compete? Then, we'll discuss whether they can repeat that performance with health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) govt provides welfare pretty well and the private sector would probably not outcompete the govt here unless you consider outright charity the "private sector"

2) govt does a pretty good job enlisting and paying soldiers to "protect and serve." private sector i don't think could do nearly as good a job for a few reasons, though mainly b/c "i joined to give my life to protect my [insert company's name here]" probably doesn't ring true to many enlistees.

Barron

boracay · #28 10-22-2007, 06:02 AM

Don't forget Jeb in the next cicle.

"I mean, what's the elections? You know, two guys, same background, wealth, political influence, went to the same elite university, joined the same secret society where you're trained to be a ruler - they both can run because they're financed by the same corporate institutions. At the Democratic Convention, Barack Obama said, 'only in this country, only in America, could someone like me appear here.' Well, in some other countries, people much poorer than him would not only talk at the convention - they'd be elected president. Take Lula. The president of Brazil is a guy with a peasant background, a union organizer, never went to school, he's the president of the second-biggest country in the hemisphere. Only in America? I mean, there they actually have elections where you can choose somebody from your own ranks. With different policies. That's inconceivable in the United States." - Noam Chomsky

DblBarrelJ · #29 10-22-2007, 06:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the government isn't actively going to destroy private insurance; it's going to be an natural evolutionary leap. The government plan is going to be so much better that private insurance won't be able to compete. It's indirect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please name ANYHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that the government currently does so well that the private sector couldn't compete? Then, we'll discuss whether they can repeat that performance with health care.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) govt provides welfare pretty well and the private sector would probably not outcompete the govt here unless you consider outright charity the "private sector"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, the government is good at taking my money and redistributing it to the undeserving. Point taken.

[ QUOTE ]

2) govt does a pretty good job enlisting and paying soldiers to "protect and serve." private sector i don't think could do nearly as good a job for a few reasons, though mainly b/c "i joined to give my life to protect my [insert company's name here]" probably doesn't ring true to many enlistees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, based purely on performance measures, Blackwater has lost less lives/materials in their convoys than the US Military has, as well as lost less of their own men than the US Military has, so I would say that privately run Security firms/Military Organizations would be more highly trained, highly specialized, and highly paid.

Its alot like the police, if the police were adequate at protecting people, celebrities would rely on the police, but instead those who can afford to do so often employ a private bodyguard.

Taso · #30 10-22-2007, 06:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the government isn't actively going to destroy private insurance; it's going to be an natural evolutionary leap. The government plan is going to be so much better that private insurance won't be able to compete. It's indirect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please name ANYHING, ANYTHING AT ALL that the government currently does so well that the private sector couldn't compete? Then, we'll discuss whether they can repeat that performance with health care.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) govt provides welfare pretty well and the private sector would probably not outcompete the govt here unless you consider outright charity the "private sector"

2) govt does a pretty good job enlisting and paying soldiers to "protect and serve." private sector i don't think could do nearly as good a job for a few reasons, though mainly b/c "i joined to give my life to protect my [insert company's name here]" probably doesn't ring true to many enlistees.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you consider charity, if not private? It's not part of government.

Interesting though: If the government were to stop taking people's money in the form of taxes, they'd be more apt to give to charity. The ones who were able to would give (and we'd have more able to if they weren't giving a third of their income to taxes) and the ones who wanted to finally purchase a home, and weren't able to give, wouldn't, instead using their money to help themselves. (They/their is almost always "the people" in this paragraph, it's 7am here, I'm going to bed, forgive any grammatical errors :P )